Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:55:37 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: fix CONFIG_HIGHPTE |
| |
At some point in the past, Andrew Morton wrote: >> We're piling more and more crap in there to support these pte_chains. >> How much is too much? >> Is it likely that large pages and/or shared pagetables would allow us to >> place pagetables and pte_chains in the direct-mapped region, avoid all >> this?
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:07:52AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote: > On ppc64 shared pagetables will require significant changes to the way > we handle the hardware hashtable. So add that to the "more and more crap > in there to support these pte_chains" > Will shared pagetables be a requirement or can we turn it on per arch? > Anton
Actually shared pagetables require significant semantic changes in rmap, e.g. every usage of ptep_to_mm() is broken by shared pagetables and tracking down assumptions that the (pte, mm) relation is 1:1 is ugly too. The existing patch for it is not prepared to cope with these.
If they're not already sitting in a back room in ozlabs or Austin somewhere I'll ship the 3 or 4 singletask 64-bit pagetable OOM's to LTP etc. to help dispel the 32-bit pagetable space myth, too.
Cheers, Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |